scholarly journals Characteristics of Populations Excluded From Clinical Trials Supporting Intensive Blood Pressure Control Guidelines

Author(s):  
Timothy S. Anderson ◽  
Michelle C. Odden ◽  
Joanne Penko ◽  
Dhruv S. Kazi ◽  
Brandon K. Bellows ◽  
...  

Background Only one third of patients recommended intensified treatment by the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guideline for high blood pressure would have been eligible for the clinical trials on which recommendations were largely based. We sought to identify characteristics of adults who would have been trial‐ineligible in order to inform clinical practice and research priorities. Methods and Results We examined the proportion of adults diagnosed with hypertension who met trial inclusion and exclusion criteria, stratified by age, diabetes mellitus status, and guideline recommendations in a cross‐sectional study of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2013–2016. Of the 107.7 million adults (95% CI, 99.3–116.0 million) classified as having hypertension by the ACC/AHA guideline, 23.1% (95% CI, 20.8%–25.5%) were below the target blood pressure of 130/80 mm Hg, 22.2% (95% CI, 20.1%–24.4%) would be recommended nonpharmacologic treatment, and 54.6% (95% CI, 52.5%–56.7%) would be recommended additional pharmacotherapy. Only 20.6% (95% CI, 18.8%–22.4%) of adults with hypertension would be trial‐eligible. The majority of adults <50 years were excluded because of low cardiovascular risk and lack of access to primary care. The majority of adults aged ≥70 years were excluded because of multimorbidity and limited life expectancy. Reasons for trial exclusion were similar for patients with and without diabetes mellitus. Conclusions Intensive blood pressure treatment trials were not representative of many younger adults with low cardiovascular risk and older adults with multimorbidity who are now recommended more intensive blood pressure goals.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yaling Tang ◽  
Hetal Shah ◽  
Carlos Roberto Bueno Junior ◽  
Xiuqin Sun ◽  
Joanna Mitri ◽  
...  

<b>Objectives: </b>The effects of preventive interventions on cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy (CAN) remain unclear. We examined the effect of intensively treating traditional risk factors for CAN, including hyperglycemia, hypertension, and dyslipidemia, in persons with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and high cardiovascular risk participating in the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial. <p><b>Research Design and Methods: </b>CAN was defined as heart rate variability indices below the 5<sup>th</sup> percentile of the normal distribution. Of 10,250 ACCORD participants, 71% (n=7,275) had a CAN evaluation at study entry and at least once after randomization. The effects of intensive interventions on CAN were analyzed among these subjects through generalized linear mixed models. </p> <p><b>Results: </b>As compared to standard intervention, intensive glucose treatment reduced CAN risk by 16% (OR=0.84, 95%CI 0.75–0.94, p=0.003) – an effect driven by individuals without cardiovascular disease (CVD) at baseline (OR= 0.73, 95%CI 0.63–0.85, p<0.0001) rather than those with CVD (OR=1.10, 95%CI 0.91–1.34, p=0.34) (p for interaction=0.001). Intensive blood pressure intervention decreased CAN risk by 25% (OR=0.75, 95% CI 0.63–0.89, p=0.001), especially in patients ≥65 years old (OR=0.66, 95% CI 0.49–0.88, p=0.005) (p for interaction =0.05). Fenofibrate did not have a significant effect on CAN (OR=0.91, 95%CI 0.78–1.07, p=0.26). </p> <p><b>Conclusions: </b> These data confirm a beneficial effect of intensive glycemic therapy and demonstrate, for the first time, a similar benefit of intensive blood pressure control on CAN in T2D. A negative CVD history identifies T2D patients who especially benefit from intensive glycemic control for CAN prevention. </p>


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yaling Tang ◽  
Hetal Shah ◽  
Carlos Roberto Bueno Junior ◽  
Xiuqin Sun ◽  
Joanna Mitri ◽  
...  

<b>Objectives: </b>The effects of preventive interventions on cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy (CAN) remain unclear. We examined the effect of intensively treating traditional risk factors for CAN, including hyperglycemia, hypertension, and dyslipidemia, in persons with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and high cardiovascular risk participating in the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial. <p><b>Research Design and Methods: </b>CAN was defined as heart rate variability indices below the 5<sup>th</sup> percentile of the normal distribution. Of 10,250 ACCORD participants, 71% (n=7,275) had a CAN evaluation at study entry and at least once after randomization. The effects of intensive interventions on CAN were analyzed among these subjects through generalized linear mixed models. </p> <p><b>Results: </b>As compared to standard intervention, intensive glucose treatment reduced CAN risk by 16% (OR=0.84, 95%CI 0.75–0.94, p=0.003) – an effect driven by individuals without cardiovascular disease (CVD) at baseline (OR= 0.73, 95%CI 0.63–0.85, p<0.0001) rather than those with CVD (OR=1.10, 95%CI 0.91–1.34, p=0.34) (p for interaction=0.001). Intensive blood pressure intervention decreased CAN risk by 25% (OR=0.75, 95% CI 0.63–0.89, p=0.001), especially in patients ≥65 years old (OR=0.66, 95% CI 0.49–0.88, p=0.005) (p for interaction =0.05). Fenofibrate did not have a significant effect on CAN (OR=0.91, 95%CI 0.78–1.07, p=0.26). </p> <p><b>Conclusions: </b> These data confirm a beneficial effect of intensive glycemic therapy and demonstrate, for the first time, a similar benefit of intensive blood pressure control on CAN in T2D. A negative CVD history identifies T2D patients who especially benefit from intensive glycemic control for CAN prevention. </p>


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document